WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000
My name is Dan Cohen, and I am academic, as he said.

00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:07.000
And what that means is that I argue.

00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:09.000
It's an important part of my life, and I like to argue.

00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:13.000
And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,

00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:16.000
so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.

00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:19.000
But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:23.000
And thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles,

00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:25.000
and one of the puzzles is that

00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:27.000
as I've been thinking about arguing over the years,

00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:30.000
and it's been decades now, I've gotten better at arguing,

00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:34.000
but the more that I argue and the better that I get at arguing,

00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:37.000
the more that I lose. And that's a puzzle.

00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:41.000
And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.

00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:43.000
Why is it that I'm okay with losing

00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:45.000
and why is it that I think that good arguers

00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:47.000
are actually better at losing?

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:49.000
Well, there's some other puzzles.

00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:52.000
One is, why do we argue? Who benefits from arguments?

00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:54.000
And when I think about arguments now, I'm talking about,

00:00:54.000 --> 00:00:57.000
let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments

00:00:57.000 --> 00:00:59.000
where something cognitive is at stake.

00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:02.000
Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?

00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:06.000
Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text?

00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:08.000
And so on. I'm not interested really in arguments about

00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:12.000
whose turn it is to to do the dishes or who has to take out the garbage.

00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:14.000
Yeah, we have those arguments too.

00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:17.000
I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.

00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:19.000
But those aren't the important arguments.

00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:21.000
I'm interested in academic arguments today,

00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:23.000
and here are the things that puzzle me.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:27.000
First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?

00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:30.000
What do I win if I convince you that

00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:33.000
utilitarianism isn't really the right framework for thinking about ethical theories.

00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:35.000
So what do we win when we win an argument?

00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:38.000
Even before that, what does it matter to me

00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:41.000
whether we have this idea that Kant's theory works

00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:44.000
or Mill's the right ethicist to follow?

00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:47.000
It's no skin off my back whether you think

00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:50.000
functionalism is a viable theory of mind.

00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:52.000
So why do we even try to argue?

00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:54.000
Why do we convince other people

00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:56.000
to believe things that they don't want to believe?

00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:59.000
And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way

00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:01.000
to treat another human being, try and make them

00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:03.000
think something they don't want to think?

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:06.000
Well, my answer is going to make reference to

00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:08.000
three models for arguments.

00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:10.000
The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,

00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:12.000
is that we think of articles as war, and you know what that's like.

00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:14.000
There's a lot of screaming and shouting

00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:16.000
and winning and losing,

00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:19.000
and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing

00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:21.000
but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:24.000
But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.

00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:26.000
Think of a mathematician's argument.

00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:29.000
Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?

00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:33.000
Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?

00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:36.000
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:39.000
No opposition, no adversariality,

00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:44.000
not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:47.000
But there's a third model to keep in mind

00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:49.000
that I think is going to be very helpful,

00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:51.000
and that is arguments as performances,

00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:54.000
arguments in front of an audience.

00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:56.000
We can think of a politician trying to present a position,

00:02:56.000 --> 00:02:59.000
trying to a convince the audience of something.

00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:02.000
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,

00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:06.000
namely that when we argue before and audience,

00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:10.000
sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,

00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:14.000
that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries

00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:17.000
who make a judgment and decide the case.

00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:20.000
Let's call this the rhetorical model,

00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:23.000
where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.

00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:26.000
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:29.000
tight argument in English before a Francophone audience

00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:31.000
just isn't going to work.

00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:34.000
So we have this models -- argument-as-war,

00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:37.000
argument-as-proof, and argument-as-performance.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:42.000
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.

00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:45.000
It dominates how we talk about arguments,

00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:47.000
it dominates how we think about arguments,

00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:50.000
and because of that, it shapes how we argue,

00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:52.000
our actual conduct in arguments.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:54.000
Now, when we talk about arguments,

00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:56.000
yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.

00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:58.000
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,

00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:00.000
arguments that are right on target.

00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:03.000
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.

00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:06.000
We want killer arguments.

00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:09.000
That's the kind of argument we want.

00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:11.000
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:13.000
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably

00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:16.000
what you thought of, the adversarial model.

00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:19.000
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm

00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:21.000
or model for thinking about arguments,

00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:24.000
has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:28.000
First it elevates tactics over substance.

00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:30.000
Right. You can take classes in logic, argumentation.

00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:33.000
You learn all about the subterfuges that people use

00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:35.000
to try and win arguments, the false steps.

00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:38.000
It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.

00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:42.000
It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.

00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:45.000
And the only foreseeable outcomes

00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:51.000
is triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.

00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:54.000
I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,

00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:56.000
it seems to prevent things like negotiation

00:04:56.000 --> 00:04:59.000
or deliberation or compromise

00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:02.000
or collaboration.

00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:04.000
Think about that one. Have you ever entered an argument

00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:07.000
thinking, "Let's see if we can hash something out

00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:10.000
rather than fight it out. What can we work out together?"

00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:12.000
And I think the argument-as-war metaphor

00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:16.000
inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.

00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:19.000
And finally, this is really the worst thing,

00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:21.000
arguments don't seem to get us anywhere.

00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:24.000
They're dead ends. They are, what, roundabouts

00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:27.000
or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.

00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:30.000
We don't get anywhere.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:32.000
Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator,

00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:34.000
this is the one that really bothers me:

00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:37.000
if argument is war, then there's an implicit equation

00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:41.000
of learning with losing.

00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:43.000
And let me explain what I mean.

00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:46.000
Suppose you and I have an argument.

00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:50.000
You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.

00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:52.000
And I say, "Well why do you believe P?"

00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:54.000
And you give me your reasons.

00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:56.000
And I object and say, "Well, what about...?"

00:05:56.000 --> 00:05:58.000
And you answer my objection.

00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:00.000
And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?

00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:03.000
How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question.

00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:05.000
Now, suppose at the end of the day,

00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:07.000
I've objected, I've questioned,

00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:09.000
I've raised all sorts of counter-considerations,

00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:13.000
and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.

00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:16.000
And so at the end of the day, I say,

00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:20.000
"You know what? I guess you're right. P."

00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:23.000
So I have a new belief. And it's not just any belief,

00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:28.000
but it's a well-articulated, examined,

00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:30.000
it's a battle-tested belief.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:35.000
Great cognitive game. Okay. Who won that argument?

00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:38.000
Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying

00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:41.000
you won even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.

00:06:41.000 --> 00:06:45.000
What did you gain cognitively from convincing me?

00:06:45.000 --> 00:06:48.000
Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:51.000
maybe you get some professional status in the field.

00:06:51.000 --> 00:06:53.000
This guy's a good arguer.

00:06:53.000 --> 00:06:57.000
But cognitively, now, who was the winner?

00:06:57.000 --> 00:06:59.000
The war metaphor forces us into thinking

00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:02.000
that you're the winner and I lost,

00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:04.000
even though I gained.

00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.000
And there's something wrong with that picture.

00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:09.000
And that's the picture I really want to change if I can.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:13.000
So how can we find ways to make arguments

00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:16.000
yield something positive?

00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:21.000
What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.

00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:23.000
But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments

00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:27.000
until we have new entry approaches to arguments.

00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:30.000
We need to think of new kinds of arguments.

00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:33.000
In order to do that, well,

00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:36.000
I don't know how to do that.

00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:38.000
That's the bad news.

00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:40.000
The argument-as-war metaphor is just, it's a monster.

00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:42.000
It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:44.000
and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it,

00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:47.000
there's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.

00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:49.000
I don't have an answer.

00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:51.000
But I have some suggestions,

00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:53.000
and here's my suggestion.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:55.000
If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,

00:07:55.000 --> 00:07:59.000
what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.

00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:01.000
So try this.

00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:06.000
Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.

00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:10.000
There's the proponent and the opponent,

00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:12.000
in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:14.000
There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:17.000
There's the reasoner in argument-as-proofs.

00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:20.000
All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument

00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:25.000
in which you are the arguer but you're also in the audience

00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:27.000
watching yourself argue?

00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:30.000
Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,

00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:34.000
losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument,

00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:39.000
say, "Wow, that was a good argument."

00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:41.000
Can you do that? I think you can.

00:08:41.000 --> 00:08:44.000
And I think, if you can imagine that kind of argument

00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:45.000
where the loser says to the winner

00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:48.000
and the audience and the jury can say,

00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:50.000
"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:51.000
then you have imagined a good argument.

00:08:51.000 --> 00:08:54.000
And more than that, I think you've imagined

00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:56.000
a good arguer, an arguer that's worthy

00:08:56.000 --> 00:08:59.000
of the kind of arguer you should try to be.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:02.000
Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:04.000
It takes practice to become a good arguer

00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:06.000
in the sense of being able to benefit from losing,

00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:09.000
but, you know, fortunately, I've had many, many colleagues

00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:12.000
who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:14.000
Thank you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:17.000
(Applause)